Well, people are buying a Bugatti because they are able to utilize it. That's why cars exist in the the market in the first place. Because they have utilization capacity - they are able to be driven. The price then depends on how big this capacity is. So, people are not buying cars because they are tradable. Everything on the market is tradable by definition. And everything that is tradable is by definition means of exchange.  You can't say a Bugatti costs $1M because it's tradable. That's stupid. It's utilization capacity that matters. This is true for everything that is in the market. When buyers are checking a product they basically check its utilization capacity.

Utilization capacity of a security is how much value will the last holder of security get from the issuer at the security withdrawal from the market. If for e.g. a bond issuer offers $1,000 face value that's the utilization capacity and the market price will be around that level. No one will pay you $1M for a bond with $1,0000 face value.

We know that bitcoin issuer/issuers don't withdraw bitcoin from the market to give something the last bitcoin holders. So, bitcoin has zero utilization capacity in that sense. Which means that bitcoin must have utilization capacity the same as economic goods have. An in bitcoin this utilization capacity is the ability to be watched on the screen. It is not the ability to driven, eaten, turned into energy or jewelry etc. It's simply the ability to be watched. What I am asking is why would I pay $38,000 for that? People in this topic are ignoring this question, but instead repeat, in various ways, that bitcoin has generic feature of all things that exist on the market, that it is "tradable", that it is a "means of exchange", etc. Well, a needle is tradable the same as a Bugatti. But I am interested to know why would I give you a Bugatti for a needle? Why would I give you a thing with a huge utilization capacity for a thing with immensely small utilization capacity? Can you answer the question?